At least two legislators on The Hill are keeping their wits about them during the current Congressional spending spree.  Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have been working to trim the fat from their colleagues’ massive economic stimulus proposal.  The recommended DOE cuts alone would save taxpayers almost $15 billion (more than 10% of the current proposal) - and this doesn’t even take into account the State Stabilization Fund, which also includes money for education:

Elimination of Disability Research - $610,000,000
Reduction of IDEA - $6,750,000,000
Reduction of Title I Funding - $6,500,000,000
Reduction of Head Start - $1,050,000,000
Reduction of Teacher Quality Partnership Grants - $50,000,000
TOTAL - $14,960,000,000

At least it’s a start.

On the other hand, folks are already salivating over the myriad ways to get their hands on some of the stimulus cashola.  Lining up at the trough before it is filled seems to be a sport of sorts, and Thompson Publishing is fanning the flames of desire with School Grants 2009, their guide to the education money and how to get it.  The amazing thing is that a subscription to School Grants 2009 even pays for itself.  Thomson reminds prospective clients that:

“Don’t forget, your federal grant money can be used to pay for this product.”

Priceless.

I hate to be the skunk at the garden party but will all the education reformers out there please stop asking how to get their pet programs included in the stimulus package?? Not only should real reformers stay far away from this massive, one-time spending bill, they should understand that this stimulus is likely to result in less reform, not more, no matter what happens.

By its very nature, a stimulus is a boost, a kick. Several stimulus – stimuli – should produce many boosts. Boosts take energy – stimulus suggests forward movement, activity. It’s got positive connotations. Lots of good things happen when you stimulate them, right? That is, of course, unless the stimulus is an artificial substance, like a drug, which does something unnatural and temporary, and potentially addictive, to the user.

The stimulus package proposed by the President and being negotiated now in Congress is sort of like a bad drug, at least when it comes to education spending.  After achieving much success in finally convincing the American people of the destructive effects of the status quo - a reliance of inputs over results for kids - the stimulus package promises to return us to the oh so yesterday 80s, where money and government grew for education with little impact on student achievement.

There is much to say about this, and Edspresso will provide live, in person testimony about what occurs when federal spending, in particular, blows out through the Education Department, allegedly headed for schools. Here’s just one fact of life when it comes to federal education spending, than transcends political party or ideology:

Every dollar spent at the federal level will grow the federal bureaucracy first, state government second, local district personnel third, and will only then, reach the schools, where funds will be disbursed not to those who do the best or need it the most, but who have been around the longest.

The process by which the spending is determined will not be specified in the stimulus package. Those decisions will be made amidst the maze of programs, divisions, and branches in the Education Department, with little influence from new political parties (no, Secretary Arne Duncan won’t be able to reach down and change this). The rules and regulations for processing funds will result in increased power for those who distribute the funds, from feds, to states, and incorporate very little innovate thinking, as innovation is not a natural state of the traditional education agency.

Just like the famous story of the Annenberg grant, which spread out millions amongst the worst school districts with no impact, the stimulus bill’s education chapter will have the same impact. But like those drugs we warn our children to stay away from, the initial euphoria will be great when those dollars start flowing. And after it all wears off, we’ll be looking for more money to feed our habit. Will we ask ourselves if we really need it? Is that what addicts do? No, didn’t think so.

Don’t believe it? The Washington Post seems to agree.

MEMO

TO: Readers
FROM: Ed M. Onitor
DATE: January 28, 2009
RE: Did you think it was all about the kids?

I wanted to flag for you Sam Dillon’s piece on the education portion of the federal stimulus package from today’s New York Times.

Some lines worth highlighting:

“The economic stimulus plan that Congress has scheduled for a vote on Wednesday would shower the nation’s school districts, child care centers and university campuses with $150 billion in new federal spending…”

“Critics and supporters alike said that by its sheer scope, the measure could profoundly change the federal government’s role in education…”

“Obama administration officials, teachers unions and associations representing school boards, colleges and other institutions in American education said the aid would bring crucial financial relief to the nation’s 15,000 school districts and to thousands of campuses otherwise threatened with severe cutbacks.”

“This is going to avert literally hundreds of thousands of teacher layoffs,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Tuesday.”

“This really marks a new era in federal spending…”

And perhaps the most on-target statement comes from AEI’s Rick Hess (it almost made me spill my coffee):

“It’s like an alcoholic at the end of the night when the bars close, and the solution is to open the bar for another hour…”

Instead of throwing money at our crisis, why don’t we throw some innovation at our failing education system?

Got Mandate?